Hand Gun Requirements?

[Inkd]

Here is a website with some range locations:
Shooting Ranges in Maryland - Wildlife and Heritage Service - Maryland Department of Natural Resources

I also have a question. I currently have a Glock 19 and my SO has a Glock 30. We have thought about getting a conversion kit (for mine) to be able to shoot .22 with my 9mm. (I believe Sig also makes or has conversion kits for some of their firearms also). Has anyone had any experience with doing this? I figured it would be great to practice fire the .22 rounds through the gun that I am already familiar with and it would only keep improving my accuracy (at a reduced cost). Thoughts? TIA!

Ceiner, Tactical Solutions and Advantage Arms all make conversion kits for Glocks to shoot 22's. I have a Tactical Solutions and it's been okay for me. It's a bit picky on ammo but I have read that sometimes it takes 500 or so rounds through them to get them to run reliably. In the meantime though I have become great at failure drills.

I also have a GSG 1911-22 to practice on Government Model style guns.

It is great to shoot for a couple hours for less money than a box of factory 9mm or 45acp. It will make a big difference in your shooting skills.

 

[Vince]

Ceiner, Tactical Solutions and Advantage Arms all make conversion kits for Glocks to shoot 22's. I have a Tactical Solutions and it's been okay for me. It's a bit picky on ammo but I have read that sometimes it takes 500 or so rounds through them to get them to run reliably. In the meantime though I have become great at failure drills.

I also have a GSG 1911-22 to practice on Government Model style guns.

It is great to shoot for a couple hours for less money than a box of factory 9mm or 45acp. It will make a big difference in your shooting skills.

A 9mm is not much more expensive to shoot, plus if you choose to buy a .22 first you'll find it's no good for home defense or concealed carry. Buy a 9mm or .45 first and learn to shoot with it. Ammo is not much more expensive and even cheaper on line from places like Cabelas or Sportsmans Guide. For home defense, with a 9mm, if you can't hit someone with 17 rounds, you shouldn't be shooting a gun.

 

[aps45819]

A 9mm is not much more expensive to shoot, plus if you choose to buy a .22 first you'll find it's no good for home defense or concealed carry. Buy a 9mm or .45 first and learn to shoot with it. Ammo is not much more expensive and even cheaper on line from places like Cabelas or Sportsmans Guide. For home defense, with a 9mm, if you can't hit someone with 17 rounds, you shouldn't be shooting a gun.

A .380 is plenty. Don't know why you guys think you need cannons.

The Ultimate Zombie Gun: Red Jacket ZK-22 Bullpup Rifle - Guns & Ammo

This was a .380

 

[dustin]

It's been said, to use your handgun to fight your way to your longgun (shotgun/rifle).

However, I believe there is value in being able to have postive control of your handgun in one hand, while you are connected to 911 on your cellphone in the other hand. Or being able to close doors, wake a loved one, fight back, etc.

I will repeat which others have said, you must get PROPER training on whichever firearm(s) you choose. Not every gun owner is a smart gun owner. Some have been improperly trained or "self-taught". The same could be said for your average American driver.

There is a mindset one must prepare for if owning a firearm for self-defense. If you are not ready to pull the trigger, don't pull the gun. You will be pulling the trigger with purpose to "stop the threat".

Even if you only keep your gun in your home for self defense, you still need to be aware of your state's laws, as these laws may change one's home defense scenarios. IE in one state you have to retreat to a room or attempt to escape out a window before using deadly force, while in another state you can "stand your ground" inside your home.

There is also, depending on your state, "escalation of force" (could have used pepper spray you had in your purse) or "disparity of force" to mindful of (IE the attacker is 120 pounds versus your 200 pounds. Or the attacker is a man and you are a women, etc.)

Lastly, be prepared to go to jail. Even in a crystal clear self-defense situation, you may still have charges.

 

[officeguy]

A .380 is plenty. Don't know why you guys think you need cannons.

This was a .380

Lol, they couldn't get out of there fast enough.

 

[TNRabbit]

A .380 is plenty. Don't know why you guys think you need cannons.

The Ultimate Zombie Gun: Red Jacket ZK-22 Bullpup Rifle - Guns & Ammo

This was a .380

It's been said, to use your handgun to fight your way to your longgun (shotgun/rifle).

However, I believe there is value in being able to have postive control of your handgun in one hand, while you are connected to 911 on your cellphone in the other hand. Or being able to close doors, wake a loved one, fight back, etc.

I will repeat which others have said, you must get PROPER training on whichever firearm(s) you choose. Not every gun owner is a smart gun owner. Some have been improperly trained or "self-taught". The same could be said for your average American driver.

There is a mindset one must prepare for if owning a firearm for self-defense. If you are not ready to pull the trigger, don't pull the gun. You will be pulling the trigger with purpose to "stop the threat".

Even if you only keep your gun in your home for self defense, you still need to be aware of your state's laws, as these laws may change one's home defense scenarios. IE in one state you have to retreat to a room or attempt to escape out a window before using deadly force, while in another state you can "stand your ground" inside your home.

There is also, depending on your state, "escalation of force" (could have used pepper spray you had in your purse) or "disparity of force" to mindful of (IE the attacker is 120 pounds versus your 200 pounds. Or the attacker is a man and you are a women, etc.)

Lastly, be prepared to go to jail. Even in a crystal clear self-defense situation, you may still have charges.

I would be surprised if the guy doing the shooting in that video didn't do some jail time. "Stop the Threat" doesn't incur following them & continuing to shoot AT THEIR BACKS. I was an investigator for 10 years & we were trained to NEVER shoot at someone who wasn't directly posing a threat (FYI, running away is not posing a threat). I would have immediately lost my badge & most likely been kicked out for that.

Don't get me wrong; I applaud the guy for taking care of the situation, but I sincerely hope for his sake he didn't get in more trouble than the guys he ran off (entirely possible).

 

[EmptyTimCup]

Dustin was probably referring to MD

 

[officeguy]

I would be surprised if the guy doing the shooting in that video didn't do some jail time. "Stop the Threat" doesn't incur following them & continuing to shoot AT THEIR BACKS. I was an investigator for 10 years & we were trained to NEVER shoot at someone who wasn't directly posing a threat (FYI, running away is not posing a threat). I would have immediately lost my badge & most likely been kicked out for that.

Well, there was that pakistani owner of a Dunkin Donuts / gas-station up in Laurel who shot a punk who tried to rob him after he had chased him out of the store. The Anne Arundel DA looked at the case and didn't charge him. What probably protected him was the fact that the entire service station was considered his 'place of business'.

Ocala is one of the more conservative corners of FL, a district attorney wishing to get re-elected is not going to go after an old guy who defended not only himself but everyone else in the joint. But yes, once those punks were running, he was technically outside of the realm of self-defense (I wish he had dropped at least one of them for good funerals work better than the judiciary system).

 

[Vince]

A .380 is plenty. Don't know why you guys think you need cannons.

The Ultimate Zombie Gun: Red Jacket ZK-22 Bullpup Rifle - Guns & Ammo

This was a .380

A 9mm or .45 is not a cannon. Now my .44.....that's an effing cannon.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

A 9mm or .45 is not a cannon. Now my .44.....that's an effing cannon.

"Elephant gun"

 

[DooDoo1402]

You DO NOT use a gun to "hurt someone". The liability is INSANE--ask anyone who's ever used one on a person.

If you are going to carry a gun, it needs to be to save your or someone else's life, period. There's no other reason to carry one. If you pull a gun you're not willing to use on a guy with a knife who IS willing to kill you, you're going to die.

Well, I don't agree with all that. And maybe it is the way I am reading it, but the gun, weapon, firearm (whatever) is a tool, not some killing machine! The wrong message is that they kill, period.

The military teaches basic principles of firearms and deadly force. First, one must become an expert or sharpshooter, including principles of maintaining and break down. Then they are taught what is and what is not "deadly force". The weapon is a tool and a properly trained person can control this. An example is shooting at certain points of the body can be deadly and fatal. Whereas, shooting at other certain points can be damaging, but not fatal (ie. arm, shoulder, legs, foot, ear (for the calm experts... lol), etc.) The old "fairy tale" that all guns kill is baloney. And this is why anyone that understands weapons and firearms insist that owners become well trained.

I am not picking at your post personally. But I did notice a few others with similar message that guns kill, period. And to own a weapon, one must understand that violence cannot be stopped with more violence; it's completely illogical to believe otherwise. As the military trains their warriors, a well trained person can control deadly force with firearms and weapons.

It's good the OP wants to learn before owning. It's not a requirement for all guns, but it should be... Then again, maybe I read your post wrong and we are saying the same thing, but in different ways?

 

[Larry Gude]

And to own a weapon, one must understand that violence cannot be stopped with more violence; it's completely illogical to believe otherwise.

Tell me you didn't mean that.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Well, I don't agree with all that. And maybe it is the way I am reading it, but the gun, weapon, firearm (whatever) is a tool, not some killing machine! The wrong message is that they kill, period.

The military teaches basic principles of firearms and deadly force. First, one must become an expert or sharpshooter, including principles of maintaining and break down. Then they are taught what is and what is not "deadly force". The weapon is a tool and a properly trained person can control this. An example is shooting at certain points of the body can be deadly and fatal. Whereas, shooting at other certain points can be damaging, but not fatal (ie. arm, shoulder, legs, foot, ear (for the calm experts... lol), etc.) The old "fairy tale" that all guns kill is baloney. And this is why anyone that understands weapons and firearms insist that owners become well trained.

I am not picking at your post personally. But I did notice a few others with similar message that guns kill, period. And to own a weapon, one must understand that violence cannot be stopped with more violence; it's completely illogical to believe otherwise. As the military trains their warriors, a well trained person can control deadly force with firearms and weapons.

It's good the OP wants to learn before owning. It's not a requirement for all guns, but it should be... Then again, maybe I read your post wrong and we are saying the same thing, but in different ways?

'.....but I can shoot 'em in the leg til they turn around.' - R. White - About it being "illegal" to shoot an intruder in the back as he is leaving your home after having robbed you.

 

[officeguy]

But I did notice a few others with similar message that guns kill, period.

I dont think that is the message. The message is that once you pick up a gun, you have to accept the possibility of killing whatever you are pointing it at.
Most people at the receiving end of a handgun shot do survive these days, but for practical purposes, you have to accept the possibility of death. The law also treats it as such, unless you are justified in a self-defense situation, firing a gun at someone else is treated very similar to manslaughter.

And to own a weapon, one must understand that violence cannot be stopped with more violence; it's completely illogical to believe otherwise.

The video linked above is an example to the contrary, often violence (e.g. shooting at some masked punk trying to rob a gambling joint) IS the only way to stop violence.

As the military trains their warriors, a well trained person can control deadly force with firearms and weapons.

Outside of the use of less than lethal weapons by MPs, I am not aware of any military weapons training that teaches anything but shots intended to stop (a different word for 'kill') the opponent.

 

[itsbob]

Well, I don't agree with all that. And maybe it is the way I am reading it, but the gun, weapon, firearm (whatever) is a tool, not some killing machine! The wrong message is that they kill, period.

The military teaches basic principles of firearms and deadly force. First, one must become an expert or sharpshooter, including principles of maintaining and break down. Then they are taught what is and what is not "deadly force". The weapon is a tool and a properly trained person can control this. An example is shooting at certain points of the body can be deadly and fatal. Whereas, shooting at other certain points can be damaging, but not fatal (ie. arm, shoulder, legs, foot, ear (for the calm experts... lol), etc.) The old "fairy tale" that all guns kill is baloney. And this is why anyone that understands weapons and firearms insist that owners become well trained.

I am not picking at your post personally. But I did notice a few others with similar message that guns kill, period. And to own a weapon, one must understand that violence cannot be stopped with more violence; it's completely illogical to believe otherwise. As the military trains their warriors, a well trained person can control deadly force with firearms and weapons.

It's good the OP wants to learn before owning. It's not a requirement for all guns, but it should be... Then again, maybe I read your post wrong and we are saying the same thing, but in different ways?

The only thing the military teaches as far as shooting and deadly force is "Center Mass"..

You do NOT go for the headshot (unless the only thing you can see is their head), or the leg, or shoulder.. Whether it be a human, a truck or a tank, it's ALWAYS Center Mass.

You increase the probablitily of a hit, for example a center mass shot with an M16 at 100 yards is near 100% (what every soldier considers a an easy shot on the range), where as if you are aiming for a head, shoulder or a leg your probablility drops significantly, more than likely to less than 50%.. and in some cases much less than 50%.

Every weapon in the world has a given dispersion round to round.. it can be measured in degrees or mils, and the greater the range the greater the round dispersion is, and is much more pronounced in mass produced weapons. When you are talking 100 yeards dispersion could be a fraction of an inch, or a couple of inches, either way, center of mass of a human body, you're going to hit it. Longer ranges round dispersion increases, at 200 yards can be an inch to several inches.. STILL aiming center of mass, no misses due to inherent round dispersion, head shot? Coin flip.. 300 yards? Probablility of a Center Mass hit is no longer a "sure thing" but still more than likely over 90%, head shot? Shoulder? Leg? You're going to miss much more than hit.

THEN after you factor in the round dispersion on mass produced weapons than take into account shooter abilities, weather, wind, and other external forces it gets much worse. Center of Mass ALWAYS being your best option with the most probability of hitting your target in the first place.

 

[DooDoo1402]

Outside of the use of less than lethal weapons by MPs, I am not aware of any military weapons training that teaches anything but shots intended to stop (a different word for 'kill') the opponent.

Apparently you and itsblob haven't had pulled too much guard duty; or you both didn't pay too much attention there Zero. Of course, we did have alot of duds in the military! But they were weeded out purty quickly most times.

Q. "What is the proper use of deadly force?"

A. "Only the minimum amount of force necessary to over-come the enemy"

I'll betcha you can figure out what that means for the operater of the weapon; and it IS a requirement to understand outside your general orders.

You are welcome to contact any military training facility that have and hold weapons (guns, rifles, bullets, etc.) and get enlightened.

Just because you and itsblob reply with baloney, doesn't make it so. If you want more information, you and itsblob can shoot me a PM and I will certainly steer you both in the right direction.

 

[Xbox360]

What about getting a battle rifle? Are the requirements strict for this as well?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What about getting a battle rifle? Are the requirements strict for this as well?

Depends what it is.

If it's unregulated, it's grab and go.

 

[itsbob]

Apparently you and itsblob haven't had pulled too much guard duty; or you both didn't pay too much attention there Zero. Of course, we did have alot of duds in the military! But they were weeded out purty quickly most times.

Q. "What is the proper use of deadly force?"

A. "Only the minimum amount of force necessary to over-come the enemy"

I'll betcha you can figure out what that means for the operater of the weapon; and it IS a requirement to understand outside your general orders.

You are welcome to contact any military training facility that have and hold weapons (guns, rifles, bullets, etc.) and get enlightened.

Just because you and itsblob reply with baloney, doesn't make it so. If you want more information, you and itsblob can shoot me a PM and I will certainly steer you both in the right direction.

That's not "deadly force".. that's the "use of force". Deadly force being your last and final option.

There are no levels of deadly force, it is what it is DEADLY..

The question would be "When are you allowed to use deadly force?" Depending on where you are in the world, what the scenario is and what the ROE is, it differs.

And your quote is wrong as to the use of deadly force to overcome an enemy.. You don't use the minimum needed, you bring any and all assets to bear on the enemy to ensure a quick and one sided victory. You don't see 100 terrorists attacking and give the order to only shoot 100 rounds.. You bring in overwhelming firepower to STOP them. There is no such thing as using minimum force.

If you're getting attacked you don't stop and think.. "I THINK we can defeat them with our organic weapons on hand, our handguns, personal weapons and our Squad Weapons." No, you bring to bear any and all weapons at your disposal. Artillery, Air, mortar.. of course there aren't many that have that kind of firepower at their disposal.

 

[itsbob]

Apparently you and itsblob haven't had pulled too much guard duty; or you both didn't pay too much attention there Zero. Of course, we did have alot of duds in the military! But they were weeded out purty quickly most times.

But you're right..

I NEVER pulled guard.. in fact rarely handled a weapon at all.

Once a year I got to go out with the cooks and supply clerks and qualify with my M16..

Ahhh, the life of an Underground Messkit Repairman.. those were the days.